The Trump Organization used to borrow from major banks. Now look who’s lending it money.

NBC News

The Trump Organization used to borrow from major banks. Now look who’s lending it money.

Gretchen Morgenson – April 7, 2022

Donald Trump used to bank with the big guns. Now he’s borrowing from Axos Financial, an obscure, internet-only institution based in San Diego and Las Vegas.

In mid-February, Axos refinanced a $100 million Trump Tower mortgage due in September, a New York City Finance Department document shows. The new loan was made just days after The Trump Organization’s auditor resigned, saying that 10 years of the company’s financial statements could not be relied upon.

In lending to The Trump Organization, Axos is stepping up when other banks have balked. But this is not unheard-of for Axos. An examination of legal filings, internal documents and land records shows Axos has a history of handling atypical loans.

Axos has teamed up with nonbank lenders on loans to small businesses that carried cripplingly high double- and triple-digit effective annual interest rates, loan documents show. The bank has also specialized in loans to foreign nationals, internal documents and its website state, and has offered a type of loan that allows borrowers who paid cash for a property to turn around and instantly take money out. Such loans may pose money laundering risks, banking analysts say.

Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue (Spencer Platt / Getty Images file)
Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue (Spencer Platt / Getty Images file)

The bank has also been sued by two former employees who say they were wrongfully fired after they raised questions about its practices. On March 21, Jennifer Brear Brinker, hired in 2018 to review the bank’s loan portfolios for its Governance, Risk Management and Compliance Department, filed suit against Axos in federal court in California.

Brinker accused the bank of intentionally understaffing its compliance department “in an effort to conceal its failure to comply with federal banking regulations” and contends she was terminated in January 2021 while completing a report highlighting deficiencies at Axos including “significant issues in the bank’s anti-money laundering practices.”

A spokesman for Axos, who asked not to be identified, said the bank disputes Brinker’s allegations “and her perception of the underlying factual circumstances.” Axos intends to defend against the lawsuit vigorously, the spokesman added.

A lawyer representing Brinker declined to comment further on her case but said they both look forward to proving her claims in court.

Later this month, Axos is scheduled to face a former internal auditor in a wrongful termination case in California federal court. That auditor, Charles Matthew Erhart, 35, was fired by Axos after he raised concerns about its practices, his 2015 lawsuit says. Among other practices alleged by Erhart — Axos allegedly failed to advise regulators of substantial and risky loans to dubious borrowers, did not disclose to regulators that it had received grand jury and other subpoenas, improperly denied that it held documents responsive to a Securities and Exchange Commission subpoena and instructed employees not to communicate with regulatory officials.

The bank’s spokesman said it denies every one of Erhart’s allegations. “All were investigated, both internally by Axos’s audit committee and independent counsel, and externally by government regulators and outside auditors,” the statement said. “None of the investigations or audits found any merit in Erhart’s allegations.”

‘Cash-recapture loans’

Axos was founded in 2000 as Bank of Internet USA, or BofI, a digital enterprise with no brick-and-mortar branches; it changed its name to Axos in 2018. Its shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange.

With $15.5 billion in assets at the end of 2021, Axos is a relatively small, federally chartered savings institution. J.P. Morgan Chase, by comparison, holds over $3 trillion in assets. Some $12.6 billion of Axos’ assets are loans, including residential mortgages and loans on commercial real estate and multi-family dwellings, SEC filings show.

Axos is overseen by Gregory Garrabrants, a lawyer, former Goldman Sachs banker and McKinsey & Co. consultant. Before joining Axos in October 2007, Garrabrants was an executive at Indymac, a huge California savings & loan that collapsed in July 2008 under a mountain of toxic mortgages, according to bank regulators. Indymac was one of the nation’s biggest bank failures, costing the FDIC fund more than $10 billion, a government investigator estimated.

Axos has been a fast grower and has turned in a torrid stock performance in recent years. In 2018, Garrabrants earned $27 million, just 10 percent less than the $30 million received by Jamie Dimon, the chief executive of JPMorgan Chase.

In lending to the Trump Organization, Axos is forging ties with a borrower that has proved troublesome for other banks over the years, with multiple bankruptcies more than a decade ago and many lawsuits.

Axos declined to comment about the terms of the loan and the Trump Organization’s spokeswoman did not respond to an email seeking comment from NBC News. But Eric Trump told CNN in a statement that “Trump Tower is one of the most iconic properties in the world and sits on arguably the most prestigious corner in all of New York. We have incredibly low debt, have a tremendous amount of cash and have an extremely profitable company. We had no problem refinancing.”

In September, Forbes valued the commercial office and retail space backing the $100 million Trump Tower mortgage Axos refinanced at $285 million; Gucci is a retail tenant on the ground floor, paying an estimated $24 million a year.

Gucci Flagship Store Extends Lease In Trump Tower (John Smith / VIEWpress via Getty Images)
Gucci Flagship Store Extends Lease In Trump Tower (John Smith / VIEWpress via Getty Images)

The $100 million Trump Tower mortgage represents a large loan for a bank the size of Axos. As a savings association, Axos is subject to limits on loans to one borrower based on a measure of its capital. On June 30, 2021, that limit was $203.8 million, the bank’s filings show, and its largest outstanding loan balance was $145 million.

For fiscal year 2021, Axos held $3.2 billion in commercial real estate loans, or 27.5 percent of its total loans. Most were on properties in California, its regulatory filings show. The new Trump Tower financing increases Axos’ lending in New York state by almost 30 percent, based on its December 2021 holdings.

Axos held $4.4 billion in single-family mortgages in 2021 or 38 percent of its loans held for investment.

In her lawsuit, former employee Brinker alleged that in 2020 Axos tried to conceal problems with home loans made to borrowers by A & D Mortgage, a Hollywood, Fla.-based nonbank mortgage lender financed by Axos. The bank failed to tell its board or its investors the loans had become problems, Brinker alleged. A&D Mortgage was funded by an Axos credit line for five years, from April 2016 to April 2021, Uniform Commercial Code filings show.

A&D would sell the mortgages it had underwritten using Axos’s line of credit into a pool of loans packaged and issued by a related entity known as Imperial Fund Capital Partners. But when Covid struck, investors refused to buy the security and the loans remained as collateral backing Axos’s credit line for longer than the 60 days the bank’s policy allowed, according to Brinker’s lawsuit.

A&D Mortgage is headed by Maksim Slyusarchuk, according to Florida corporate records, who described himself in a 2013 lawsuit he filed in Miami-Dade County as “an international businessman with experience in the Russian markets and in international finance.”

Slyusarchuk also owns 50 percent of Imperial Fund Capital, an SEC registered investment adviser with $316 million under management; it pools mortgages into securities and sells them to investors. One of its units, Imperial Fund II LLC, is financed by Sovcombank, a UCC filing shows, Russia’s ninth largest bank. Sovcombank was sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury on Feb. 24.

Neither A&D Mortgage, Imperial Fund nor Slyusarchuk responded to an email message seeking comment.

On its website, Axos says it has extensive experience in mortgage lending to “nonresident aliens” and offers loans of up to $20 million accompanied by 50 percent down payments. A 2014 investor presentation noted that the bank specialized in lending to Chinese nationals, for example, who do not have tax returns that they can present to document their financial standing.

Axos has also made loans to Russian nationals; asked about the risk of such lending given the Ukraine invasion, the Axos spokesman said they represent a fraction of 1 percent of Axos’ loans. “All such loans were done at low loan-to-value ratios and are well secured,” he added.

The 2014 Axos investor presentation also shows the bank offered so-called cash recapture loans, made to individuals paying cash in full for a property who want “to recoup some of their investment.” The bank required no waiting period to cash out, the presentation noted, but said the source of the initial purchase funds “must be sourced/seasoned.” Bank analysts say such loans may raise the risk of money laundering.

The Axos spokesman said the bank conducts “a full, know-your-customer investigation” of each cash-recapture loan applicant. The loans are “subject to strict underwriting and program qualification parameters,” he said, “designed to ensure full compliance with Anti-Money Laundering and Bank Secrecy Act laws and all other legal or regulatory requirements.”

Axos has also teamed up with some aggressive non-bank lenders charging sky-high interest rates to small business borrowers, NBC News has previously reported. The bank conducted some of these arrangements through its unit in Nevada, a state with no interest rate limits, allowing downstream lenders to evade state usury caps on loans they made to borrowers operating in more restrictive jurisdictions. Predatory lending experts call these arrangements “rent-a-bank schemes,” and they were permitted under a Trump-era banking rule. Last year, President Joe Biden signed a resolution rescinding the rule.

Axos disputed that this business involved “rent-a-banks” and said its operation was “a bank sponsorship program, operated so as to be fully compliant with legal and regulatory requirements, through which it entered into agreements with several third-party service providers.” All but one of these programs have been wound down, the spokesman added.

Joint interest agreement

In recent years, Axos has aggressively pursued anonymous bloggers who posted critical analyses of the bank’s activities on investing websites, court documents show. In 2017, Axos joined forces with top executives at MiMedx Group, a formerly high-flying maker of skin grafts, to identify anonymous critics of the companies. Axos and MiMedx entered into a “joint interest agreement” to investigate the critics, court documents and internal emails show.

Two of the top MiMedx executives with whom Axos pursued the joint interest agreement — former chief executive Parker Petit and former COO William Taylor — were convicted of fraud in 2021 and sentenced to jail in a case unrelated to Axos. Much of what had been alleged about MiMedx by the critics it targeted turned out to be accurate, the criminal case showed.

A spokeswoman for MiMedx said the company does not comment on legal matters but noted that its “senior leadership team and board of directors are entirely new since 2019.”

Regarding its arrangement with the convicted former MiMedx executives, the Axos spokesman said that when it struck the agreement with Petit and Taylor, Axos needed to communicate with MiMedx about the activities of investors who had bet against both companies and publicized those bets. He added that “the truth of allegations against MiMedx was unknown and the company and its executives appeared to enjoy a favorable reputation.”

The Erhart case

Later this month, the 2015 wrongful termination case filed by Erhart, the former Axos auditor, is scheduled to go to trial. Erhart‘s lawyer, Carol Gillam, declined to comment on the case.

Erhart began working at Bank of Internet, as Axos was known at the time, in Sept. 2013, documents show. Previously an examiner at the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, he’d led an examination that identified a broker who allegedly stole $4.2 million from his customers, his lawyer said.

A native of rural Kansas who put himself through the University of Kansas working on an assembly line and a road construction crew, Erhart began identifying problems soon after he was hired at Axos, according to his complaint. He says he expressed concerns about concentration risk at the bank, for example, noting to superiors that just nine of its customers accounted for 40 percent of its total deposits. Erhart alleges that he was advised by his boss’s superior not to put that information in an email.

Some of Erhart’s allegations about Axos’s practices had to do with the Bank Secrecy Act, which aims to curtail and detect money laundering and loans to what banking regulators call “politically exposed persons.” They are people who, because of their public positions or relationships, “may present a risk higher than other customers by having access to funds that may be the proceeds of corruption or other illicit activity.”

Banks are supposed to collect information about customers’ risk profiles to monitor and determine whether a client’s banking activities are suspicious. Erhart contended in his lawsuit the bank made material alterations of “numerous reports” required under the Bank Secrecy Act’s quality control rules and did not disclose substantial loans to criminals and politically exposed persons. In early 2015, Erhart’s complaint says, he uncovered information about borrowers who exposed the bank to reputation risk, including “very high level foreign officials from major oil-producing countries and war zones.” He did not identify specific borrowers in the complaint.

In March 2015, Erhart turned over bank records to Axos’s main regulator, the Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, his complaint said. He emailed the information he had compiled to his mother for safekeeping. He was fired in June 2015.

The OCC has not taken regulatory action against the bank. Erhart now works as a partner at a cryptocurrency consulting firm.

“In the years since Erhart first made his allegations,” the bank’s spokesman said, “Axos has suffered no adverse business event, no restatement, no spike in reserves, no loss of a major contract, no material weakness disclosure, no earnings miss. Independent auditors and government regulators — all with full knowledge of all Erhart’s allegations — have consistently issued clean audit opinions, passed examinations, and granted further regulatory approvals for more than seven full years.”

Asked to supply copies of the clean audit opinions and examinations, Axos declined, saying they are confidential.

The company did supply a copy of a 2017 letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission saying it had closed an investigation into Axos and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action against the bank. Still, the SEC said its letter “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result from the staff’s investigation.”

In a separate civil case in 2017, Garrabrants sued Erhart alleging that he had stolen his confidential information. The bank also sued Erhart’s mother in Kansas, to whom the former auditor had sent information about the bank’s activities for backup. Axos settled the case against Erhart’s mother; it declined to state the terms.

Garrabrants’ case against Erhart went to trial last fall. The jury found that Erhart had violated California law “in connection with theft of Garrabrants’ personal, confidential, and financial information,” the bank’s spokesman said.

Gillam, Erhart’s lawyer, provided a statement on this suit. “The documents Mr. Erhart accessed that related to Mr. Garrabrants were in bank files he found in the course of doing his work as an internal auditor,” she said. “They were only used to support Mr. Erhart’s allegations of wrongdoing that he presented to the bank’s principal regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.”

The jury “rejected Garrabrants’ claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and awarded him $1,500 on an invasion of privacy claim,” Gillam added. On an anti-hacking allegation, the jury awarded $1 to Garrabrants, an amount he had requested.

Erhart is appealing that verdict, Gillam said.

In late February, Axos also entered into a settlement agreement with a Houston Municipal pension fund that had sued the bank in 2015. That matter, which became a class action, alleged securities fraud largely based on Erhart’s allegations.

The terms of the settlement have not yet been made public. When asked why the bank was settling now, its spokesman said: “While Axos continues to believe that it would have prevailed at trial, this settlement allows Axos to avoid the distraction and continued expense of litigation.”

War in Ukraine is testing some American evangelicals’ support for Putin as a leader of conservative values

The Conversation

War in Ukraine is testing some American evangelicals’ support for Putin as a leader of conservative values

Melani McAlister – April 6, 2022

Melani McAlister, Professor of American Studies and International Affairs, George Washington University had received funding from Princeton’s Davis Center for Historical Studies.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin lighting a candle in an Orthodox Church.
Vladimir Putin lights a candle as he attends an Orthodox Church service in 2011. AP Photo/Alexander Zemlianichenko

In February 2022, evangelical leader Franklin Graham called on his followers to pray for Vladimir Putin. His tweet acknowledged that it might seem a “strange request” given that Russia was clearly about to invade Ukraine. But Graham asked that believers “pray that God would work in his heart so that war could be avoided at all cost.”

The backlash was fast and direct. Graham had not solicited prayers for Ukraine, some observers commented. And he had rarely called on believers to pray for U.S. President Joe Biden.

A significant subset of the U.S. evangelical community, particularly white conservatives, has been developing a political and emotional alliance with Russia for almost 20 years. Those American believers, including prominent figures such as Graham and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice see Russia, Putin and the Russian Orthodox Church as protectors of the faith, standing against attacks on “traditional” and “family” values. At the center is Russia’s spate of anti-LGBTQ laws, which have become a model for some anti-trans and anti-gay legislation in the U.S.

Now, with Russia bombing churches and destroying cities in Ukraine, the most Protestant of the former Soviet Republics, American evangelical communities are divided. Most oppose Russia’s actions, especially because there is a strong evangelical church in Ukraine that is receiving attention and prayers from a range of evangelical leaders.

Nonetheless, a small group of the most conservative American evangelicals cannot quite break up with their long-term ally. The enthusiasm for Russia is embodied by Graham, who in 2015 famously visited Moscow, where he had a warm meeting with Putin.

On that trip, Putin reportedly explained that his mother had kept her Christian faith even under Communist rule. Graham in turn praised Putin for his support of Orthodox Christianity, contrasting Russia’s “positive changes” with the rise of “atheistic secularism” in the U.S.

But it was not always so. Once upon a time, American evangelicals saw the Soviet Union and other communist countries as the world’s greatest threat to their faith.

They carried out dramatic and illegal activities, smuggling Bibles and other Christian literature across borders. And yet, today, Russia, still a country with low church attendance and little government tolerance for Protestant evangelism, has become a symbol of the conservative values that some American evangelicals proclaim.

Bible smuggling

Starting in the 1950s, but intensifying in the 1970s and 1980s, U.S. and European evangelicals presented themselves as intimately linked to the Christians who were suffering at the hands of communist governments.

One evangelical group that emerged at this time was “Open Doors,” whose main aim was to work for “persecuted Christians” around the world. It was founded by “Brother Andrew” Van der Bijl, a Dutch pastor who smuggled Bibles into the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Brother Andrew and other evangelicals argued that what Christians in communist countries really needed were Bibles – reflecting how important personal Bible reading is in evangelical faith.

Brother Andrew turned the smuggling into anti-communist political theater. As he headed toward the border in a specially outfitted vehicle with a hidden compartment that might hold as many as 3,000 Bibles, he prayed. According to one ad that ran in Christian magazines, he said:

“Lord, in my luggage I have forbidden Scriptures that I want to take to your children across the border. When you were on earth, you made blind eyes see. Now I pray, make seeing eyes blind. Do not let the guards see these things you do not want them to see.”

Van der Bijl’s memoir, “God’s Smuggler,” became a bestseller when it was published in 1967.

Taking Jesus to the communist world

By the early 1970s, there were more than 30 Protestant organizations engaged in some sort of literature smuggling, and there was an intense, sometimes quite nasty, competition between groups.

Their work depended on their charismatic leaders, who often used sensationalist approaches for fundraising.

For example, in 1966, a Romanian pastor named Richard Wurmbrand appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Internal Security subcommittee, stripped to the waist and turned to display his deeply scarred back.

A man, stripped to the waist, showing scar marks on his back to a committee seated in front of him
Rev. Richard Wurmbrand, a refugee Lutheran pastor, stands stripped to the waist to show scars of torture in a prison in Romania, as he testifies to the Senate Internal Security subcommittee in Washington, May 6, 1966. AP Photo/Henry Griffin

A Jewish convert and Lutheran minister, Wurmbrand had been imprisoned twice by the Romanian government for his activities as an “underground” minister before he finally escaped to the West in 1964.

Standing shirtless before U.S. senators and the national news media, Wurmbrand testified, “My body represents Romania, my country, which has been tortured to a point that it can no longer weep. These marks on my body are my credentials.”

The next year, Wurmbrand published his book, “Tortured for Christ,” which became a bestseller in the U.S. He founded his own activist organization, “Jesus to the Communist World,” which went on to engage in a good bit of attention-grabbing behavior.

In May 1979, for example, two 32-year-old men associated with the group flew their small plane over the Cuban coast, dropping 6,000 copies of a pamphlet written by Wurmbrand. After the “Bible bombing,” they lost their way in a storm and were forced to land in Cuba, where they were arrested and served 17 months in jail before being released.

As I describe in my book “The Kingdom of God Has No Borders,” critics hammered these groups for such provocative approaches and hardball fundraising. One leading figure in the Southern Baptist Convention complained that the practice of smuggling Bibles was “creating problems for the whole Christian witness” in communist areas.

Another Christian activist, however, admitted that the activist groups’ mix of faith and politics was hard to beat and had the ability to draw “big bucks.”

After communism: Islam and homosexuality

These days, there is little in the way of swashbuckling adventure to be had in confronting communists. But that does not mean an end to the evangelical focus on persecuted Christians.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, advocates turned their attention to the situation of Christians in Muslim-majority countries. Evangelicals in Europe and the U.S. increasingly focused on Islam  as both a competitor and a threat. Putin’s war against Chechen militants in the 1990s, and his more recent intervention on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, made him popular with Christian conservatives. Putin claimed to be protecting Christians while waging war against Islamic terrorism.

Meanwhile, Putin’s policies of cracking down on evangelism do not seem to overly bother some of his conservative evangelical allies. When Putin signed a Russian law in June 2016 that outlawed any sharing of one’s faith in homes, online or anywhere else but recognized church buildings, some evangelicals were outraged, but others looked away.

This is in part because American evangelicals in the 2010s continued to see Putin as being willing to openly support Christians in what they saw as a global war on their faith. But the more immediately salient issue was Putin’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights and nontraditional views of the family.

Graham was among those who waxed enthusiastically about Russia’s so-called gay propaganda law, which limits public material about “nontraditional” relationships. Others, such as the World Congress of Families and the Alliance Defending Freedom, have long been cultivating ties with Russian politicians as well as the Russian Orthodox Church.

Putin allies on defensive

In the 21st century, then, the most conservative wing of evangelicals was not promoting its agenda by touting the number of Bibles transported across state lines, but rather on another kind of border crossing: the power of Putin’s reputation as a leader in the resurgent global right.

Now, the invasion of Ukraine has put Putin’s allies on the defensive. There are still those, including the QAnon-supporting 2020 Republican candidate for Congress Laura Witzke, who explained in March 2022 that she identifies “more with Putin’s Christian values that I do with Joe Biden.” But Graham himself emphasized to the Religion News Service that he does not support the war, and his humanitarian organization Samaritan’s Purse sent several teams to Ukraine to operate clinics and distribute relief.

For the moment, Putin’s status as the global right’s moral vanguard is being severely tested, and the border-crossing advocates of traditional marriage may find themselves on the brink of divorce.

This article includes material from a piece pub. on September 4, 2018. 

Before you go…

The Conversation is a nonprofit organization, and we depend on readers like you to help us do our important work of sharing ideas and knowledge from academia with the public. Your support keeps us going strong. Your donation will help us reach more people with more research-based journalism. Thank you.

Supreme Court reinstates Trump-era water rule, for now

Associated Press

Supreme Court reinstates Trump-era water rule, for now

Jessica Gresko – April 6, 2022

  • FILE - Visitors walk outside the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 21, 2022. The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 6, 2022, reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that had curtailed the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File) Visitors walk outside the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 21, 2022. The Supreme Court reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that had curtailed the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)
  • FILE - Frozen water pools in a corn field near a Keystone pipeline pumping station in rural Milford, Neb., Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020. The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 6, 2022, reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that had curtailed the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)Frozen water pools in a corn field near a Keystone pipeline pumping station in rural Milford, Neb., Thursday, Jan. 9, 2020. The Supreme Court reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that had curtailed the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era rule that curtails the power of states and Native American tribes to block pipelines and other energy projects that can pollute rivers, streams and other waterways.

In a decision that split the court 5-4, the justices agreed to halt a lower court judge’s order throwing out the rule. The high court’s action does not interfere with the Biden administration’s plan to rewrite the rule. Work on a revision has begun, but the administration has said a final rule is not expected until the spring of 2023. The Trump-era rule will remain in effect in the meantime.

The court’s three liberal justices and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented. The court’s other conservative justices, including three nominated by President Donald Trump, voted to reinstate the rule.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan said the group of states and industry associations that had asked for the lower court’s ruling to be put on hold had not shown the extraordinary circumstances necessary to grant that request.

Kagan said the group had failed to demonstrate their harm if the judge’s decision were left in place. She said the group had not identified a “single project that a State has obstructed” in the months since the judge’s decision and had twice delayed making a request, indicating it was not urgent.

Kagan said the court’s majority had gone “astray” in granting the emergency petition and was misusing the process for dealing with such requests. That process is sometimes called the court’s “shadow docket” because the court provides a decision quickly without the full briefing and argument. The liberal justices have recently been critical of its use.

As is typical, the justices in the majority did not explain their reasoning.

Kagan wrote that her colleagues’ decision “renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all.”

The Biden administration had told the justices in a court filing that it agreed that the U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup lacked the authority to throw out the rule without first determining that it was invalid. But the administration had urged the court not to reinstate the rule, saying that in the months since the Alsup’s ruling, officials have adapted to the change, reverting to regulations in place for decades. Another change would “cause substantial disruption and disserve the public interest,” the administration said.

Alsup was nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton.

The section of federal law at issue in the case is Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. For decades, it had been the rule that a federal agency could not issue a license or permit to conduct any activity that could result in any discharge into navigable waters unless the affected state or tribe certified that the discharge was complied with the Clean Water Act and state law, or waived certification.

The Trump administration in 2020 curtailed that review power after complaints from Republicans in Congress and the fossil fuel industry that state officials had used the permitting process to stop new energy projects. The Trump administration said its actions would advance then-President Donald Trump’s goal to fast-track energy projects such as oil and natural gas pipelines.

States, Native American Tribes and environmental groups sued. Several mostly Republican-led states, a national trade association representing the oil and gas industry and others have intervened in the case to defend the Trump-era rule. The states involved in the case are: Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming and Texas.

Yes, Putin has already lost his war against humanity, but he’s still capable of devastating a world that see’s him as irrelevant.

John Hanno, tarbabys.com – March 10, 2022

Putin and Ukraine backfire by Dave Granlund, PoliticalCartoons.com

Putin has commenced blaming (firing, exiling to Siberia, jailing or who knows what else) those he believes failed his vision of a reborn Soviet Empire. Based on a keen sense of self preservation, browbeaten close advisors surely decided to refrain from trying to stop him blundering into the senseless and self destructive war/invasion of a Democratic, peaceful, industrious and successful neighbor, for merely exposing Putin and his Kleptocratic criminal enterprises tenuous hold on an emerging partially-woke Russian populace.

Putin believed Ukrainian’s would welcome his poorly trained military conscripts with open arms and kisses of gratitude for rounding-up all the Nazi’s left over from WWII. Unfortunately, no one with an ounce of authority dared remind him Ukraine was a Democratic nation led by a Democratically elected Jew, who’s great grand-parents died when the Nazis burned their village and his grandfather and his grandfather’s brothers all entered the Soviet Red Army, but only his grandfather survived.

He also believed those hoodwinked low paid conscripts would engender as much nationalistic determination as the patriotic Ukrainian’s fighting for their lives and loved ones and their nation and Democracy.

Likewise, the cowed generals seated at the block long conference table, peed their highly decorated uniforms every time they had to fend off taunts and darts fired by Putin at 60 paces. No one had the courage to stop a madman bent on destroying a peaceful neighbor, and with it their own Russian Federation.

Putin can’t blame the Russian zombie nation he keeps behind his Iron Curtain of propaganda, but the rest of the world can and will. His facade though, is showing as many cracks as the vaunted Russian war machine. In spite of Putin’s flashback to Czarist Russia, this is the 21st Century, where information grapevines steeped with minute-by-minute news and world views are influenced and possibly distorted by Facebook, Instagram, twitter, Snapchat etc. etc.

Putin’s information wack-a mole isn’t keeping pace with modern day technology. Each time he quashes another independent media source, a couple more pop up.

It could be Radio Free Europe broadcasting through the maze. It might be a courageous state sponsored news room producer dancing across the nightly news set behind an unaware spokesperson, with a sign begging viewers to open their eyes and ears.

Or Arnold Schwarzenegger using Twitter and Telegram to speak directly to his Russian followers, telling them about his fathers actions during the siege of Leningrad, which caused him a lifetime of both physical pain from a broken back and shrapnel and mental pain from guilt, for participating in an unjust war. He pleaded for the Russian soldiers to keep from making the same tragic mistakes his father made.

It might even be a few reformed self preserving oligarchs clearing their conscience and or spilling the beans in return for titles to their confiscated multimillion dollar condos, yachts and jets.

It could be the more than 200,000 Russians fleeing the country, a massive brain drain not witnessed since the worst of the Soviet Union’s dark days. It could be the growing thousands of Russian protestors courageous enough to risk a quick trip to a gulag and 15 years in prison for calling Putin’s invasion and war just what it is.

Yes, the lack of information/abundance of ignorance will be a challenge to overcome; approximately 65% of the Russian public believe Putin is acting responsibly, is standing up for and preserving the mother-land, is not a diabolical monster, is going god’s work faithfully endorsed by the State Sponsored Russian Orthodox Church Military Industrial Kleptocratic Complex, all based on what stories Putin jambs down their throat.

It’s unlikely Putin’s ultra ego will allow him to turn tail and flee back to Russia in disgrace; he will continue to pummel and plunder innocent civilians until the heavily sanctioned citizens of Russia get tired of living in terror, in financial depravation and in national disgrace. Will Putin take a bullet, fire himself, hang himself, flee the country, maybe to one of his yachts and just drift into oblivion.

During an interview, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour asked spokesperson for Putin, Dmitry Peskov, about his intension of using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

“I need to ask you this, because the world is afraid, and I want to know whether Putin intends the world to be afraid of the nuclear option. Would he use it?” the CNN anchor asked Peskov.

Putin “intends to make the world listen to and understand our concerns” about the perceived “anti-Russia” threat from the West, said Peskov.

“I want to ask you again. Is President Putin, because, again, the Finnish president said to me that when he asked Putin directly about this, because President Putin has laid that (nuclear) card on the label, President Putin said that, if anybody tries to stop him, very bad things will happen. And I want to know whether you are convinced or confident that your boss will not use that option.”

“Well, we have a concept of domestic security, and, well, it’s public. You can read all the reasons for nuclear arms to be used,” Peskov responded. “So, if it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be used, in accordance with our concept.”

But since the only existential threat to the Russian Federation is clearly Putin himself, I guess he should nuke himself and all the cowards in the Kremlin and the Federal Assembly, who failed to stop him from blundering into his existential threat to humanity.

Putin claimed he was invading Ukraine in order to save it from Nazi overlords who disdain Russian speaking Ukrainians. But what exactly does President Putin and the Russian war mongers have to offer Ukraine, or anyone for that matter? Terrorized families, more than 10 million refugees, millions of women and children fleeing for their lives, grand parents hiding in cellars because they’re too disabled or feeble to flee. Beautiful historic cities bombed into dust. Starving innocent people dogging rockets and missiles, and mass graves when they fail that. A ruling government that commanders 85% of a nations wealth and hands it over to a handful of connected oligarchs. Leadership that invests the balance of that GDP in military weapons of war and a domestic police state apparatus that suppresses descent, choice, individualism and above all, freedom. Ukraine has clearly seen this playbook before and are determined to fight with every ounce of their battered bodies to preserve their Democracy.

Putin has no one to blame but himself, for creating this Putinopia of his own imagination and for investing in a brutally structured Kleptocratic czarism, instead of in the Russian people.

When and if Putin finally cries uncle, there must be no plausible justifications or excuses condoned and no face saving plea deals negotiated this time. Ukraine, Europe and the entire world demands long overdue justice from this Russian marauder. Only a reckoning before the World Criminal Court for the perpetrators and supporters of this conflagration will suffice, and reparations for a plundered, innocent, sovereign nation must be exacted.

This time, for the good of the world and human existence, the civilized world cannot let this megalomaniac off the hook; the businesses who pulled out of Russia must refuse to return until Putin and his lot are disposed of. A free and fair election of all government officials supervised by a United Nations tribunal could go a long way to eventually returning Russia to some semblance of respect and legitimacy.

The crippling sanctions must remain in place until Ukraine is guaranteed security, reparations and justice. The thousands of war protestors, including political prisoners like Alexis Navalny must be exonerated. I guess it’s better late than never that countries who prospered from riches stolen from Russia are finally taking international money laundering laws serious, but if they and the U.S. had done more to crack down on Russia’s ruling Kleptocrats during the last two decades of Putin’s criminal reign, maybe he wouldn’t have had the means to launch this war.

America and the West must also come to terms with it’s own failings. Access to Russia’s oil and gas can no longer justify allowing Vladman the Madman to threaten the entire world order and existence with a nuclear holocaust. And if the Russian people and their cowed institutions can’t keep Putin or his successors in check, NATO and the United Nations must.

And blindly obedient Trump cult followers, far right government haters and our right wing media must also wake up. Idolizing, enabling and refusing to hold Autocrats and tyrants like Putin and his adoring want-a-be Donald J. Trump accountable for criminal conduct encourages and enables catastrophic tragedies like we’re witnessing in Ukraine today.

The blatant lies used by Putin to invade a peaceful, sovereign Democratic nation reminds us of the 2020 election “Big Lie” Trump still propagates to delude his faithful. But as Ukraine and the world tragically now realizes, condoning lies and ignoring the truth and facts can have apocalyptic consequences. In addition to Putin’s senseless war of choice, Trump and his sheeple used lies and conspiracies to try to overturn a free and fair election and attempt to overthrow our own Democracy. Putin and Trump are one in the same when it comes to truth telling.

Fake news collaborators can’t be ignored or downplayed. The Foxification of Russia’s state run media and the Russification of our own far right wing nationalistic media, undermines democratic fundamentals and the rule of law in both countries.

The Biden administration just finally passed a $1.2 trillion long overdue infrastructure bill. If Russia stopped the war today, it would probably cost more than that to rebuild Ukraine. And how many generations will it take before the millions of tons of forever chemicals and toxic military materials can be scrubbed and leached from Ukraine’s homeland soil and water. This war has set back environmental and climate change progress in Europe for a decade or more and self serving maniacs like Putin and Trump couldn’t care less.

I’ve written about tarbabys many times and said that a certain one might be the biggest one yet, but this Ukraine tarbaby latched on by Putin might just top all those others combined. Brer Rabbit Putin thought he could just waltz into his neighbors backyard and take by force what the industrious and forward thinking Ukrainians have nurtured since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But considering the crippling lasting sanctions on Russia’s economy and Russian society, Putin’s blatant disregard for anyone but himself, the consequential damages inflicted on Ukraine and it’s defenders, the pain and grief and misery suffered by so many, this tar on Russia’s national reputation will take many generations to erase.

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu Gets Laughs, Applause for Calling Trump ‘F—ing Crazy’ at D.C. Roast

People

Republican Gov. Chris Sununu Gets Laughs, Applause for Calling Trump ‘F—ing Crazy’ at D.C. Roast

Aaron Parsley – April 4, 2022

Christopher Sununu, Donald Trump
Christopher Sununu, Donald Trump

Scott Eisen/Getty; Brandon Bell/Getty

At a white-tie gathering of politicians and members of the press, Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu cracked that former President Donald Trump was “f—ing crazy,” delighting guests at the Gridiron Club’s roast-like dinner on Saturday night.

The annual event is a Washington, D.C., tradition that brings together members of both major political parties as well as the media to enjoy a night of laughs at their own expense.

“You know, he’s probably going to be the next president,” Sununu, 47, said of Trump, adding that Trump’s “experience,” “sense of integrity” and “rationale” came through in his tweets, according to Politico. “Nah, I’m just kidding. He’s f—ing crazy!”

“The press often will ask me if I think Donald Trump is crazy,” Sununu continued, according to The Washington Post, which also reported laughs and applause in the audience but no booing for the jokes. “And I’ll say it this way: I don’t think he’s so crazy that you could put him in a mental institution. But I think if he were in one, he ain’t getting out!”

RELATED: Trump Takes a Break from Everything Else to Share His Thoughts on … ‘Y.M.C.A.’

The Associated Press reports that speakers, which typically includes the sitting U.S. president, are expected to “singe” but “not burn” high-profile political figures.

(Sununu, for example, also riffed on Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki‘s reported plans to leave the White House for a role with NBC and MSNBC.)

Joe Biden
Joe Biden

Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty President Joe Biden

President Joe Biden did not attend the event in person but delivered remarks via video.

“I really wanted to be with you tonight, but the truth is I just couldn’t find a seven-hour-and-37-minutes gap in my schedule,” Biden joked, referencing an unusual, hours-long omission in Trump’s call logs from Jan. 6, 2021, while the U.S. Capitol was engulfed in pro-Trump violence.

RELATED: Former Attorney General Bill Barr Alleges Donald Trump ‘Went Off the Rails’ After 2020 Election

“I get the sense even if I’m not at the dinner,” the president also said, the Post reports, “I’m going to be on the menu.”

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo did attend on behalf of the Biden administration and delivered a line that met the expectation that speakers make fun of themselves even as she jokingly complained about it.

“Self-deprecating jokes?” she said, according to the Post. “No one knows who I am.”

Flurry of New Laws Move Blue and Red States Further Apart

The New York Times

Flurry of New Laws Move Blue and Red States Further Apart

Shawn Hubler and Jill Cowan – April 4, 2022

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — After the governor of Texas ordered state agencies to investigate parents for child abuse if they provide certain medical treatments to their transgender children, California lawmakers proposed a law making the state a refuge for transgender youths and their families.

When Idaho proposed a ban on abortions that empowers relatives to sue anyone who helps terminate a pregnancy after six weeks, nearby Oregon approved $15 million to help cover the abortion expenses of patients from out of state.

As Republican activists aggressively pursue conservative social policies in state legislatures across the country, liberal states are taking defensive actions. Spurred by a U.S. Supreme Court that is expected to soon upend an array of long-standing rights, including the constitutional right to abortion, left-leaning lawmakers from Washington to Vermont have begun to expand access to abortion, bolster voting rights and denounce laws in conservative states targeting LGBTQ minors.

The flurry of action, particularly in the West, is intensifying already marked differences between life in liberal- and conservative-led parts of the country. And it’s a sign of the consequences when state governments are controlled increasingly by single parties. Control of legislative chambers is split between parties now in only two states — Minnesota and Virginia — compared with 15 states 30 years ago.

“We’re further and further polarizing and fragmenting, so that blue states and red states are becoming not only a little different but radically different,” said Jon Michaels, a law professor who studies government at UCLA.

Americans have been sorting into opposing partisan camps for at least a generation, choosing more and more to live among like-minded neighbors, while legislatures, through gerrymandering, are reinforcing their states’ political identities by solidifying one-party rule.

“As states become more red or blue, it’s politically easier for them to pass legislation,” said Ryan D. Enos, a Harvard political scientist who studies partisan segregation. “Does that create a feedback loop where more sorting happens? That’s the part we don’t know yet.”

With some 30 legislatures in Republican hands, conservative lawmakers, working in many cases with shared legislative language, have begun to enact a tsunami of restrictions that for years were blocked by Democrats and moderate Republicans at the federal level. A recent wave of anti-abortion bills, for instance, has been the largest since the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

Similar moves have recently been aimed at LGBTQ protections and voting rights. In Florida and Texas, teams of “election police” have been created to crack down on the rare crime of voter fraud, fallout from former President Donald Trump’s specious claims after he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Carrying concealed guns without a permit is now legal in nearly half of the country. “Bounty” laws — enforced not by governments, which can be sued in federal court, but by rewards to private citizens for filing lawsuits — have proliferated on issues from classroom speech to vaccination since the U.S. Supreme Court declined to strike down the legal tactic in Texas.

The moves, in an election year, have raised questions about the extent to which they are performative, as opposed to substantial. Some Republican bills are bold at first glance but vaguely worded. Some appear designed largely to energize base voters.

Many, however, send a strong cultural message. And divisions will widen further, said Peverill Squire, an expert on state legislatures at the University of Missouri, if the Supreme Court hands more power over to the states on issues like abortion and voting, as it did when it said in 2019 that partisan gerrymandering was beyond federal jurisdiction.

Some legal analysts also say the anticipated rollback of abortion rights could throw a host of other privacy rights into state-level turmoil, from contraception to health care. Meanwhile, entrenched partisanship, which has already hobbled federal decision-making, could block attempts to impose strong national standards in Congress.

“We’re potentially entering a new era of state-centered policymaking,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at the University of California, Riverside. “We may be heading into a future where you could have conservative states and progressive states deciding they are better off pushing their own visions of what government should be.”

In recent weeks, several states including Colorado and Vermont have moved to codify a right to abortion. More — Maryland and Washington, for example — have expanded access or legal protection in anticipation of out-of-state patients.

But no state has been as aggressive as California in shoring up alternatives to the Republican legislation.

One package of pending California bills would expand access to California abortions and protect abortion providers from out-of-state legal action. Another proposal would thwart enforcement of out-of-state court judgments removing children from the custody of parents who get them gender-affirming health services.

Yet another would enforce a ban on ghost guns and assault weapons with a California version of Texas’ recent six-week ban on abortion, featuring $10,000 bounties to encourage lawsuits from private citizens against anyone who sells, distributes or manufactures those types of firearms.

In a “State of the State” address last month, Gov. Gavin Newsom took more than a half-dozen swipes at Florida and Texas, comparing California’s expanded sick leave, family leave and Medicaid coverage during the pandemic with the higher COVID-19 death rates in the two Republican-led states, and alluding to states “where they’re banning books” and “where you can sue your history teacher for teaching history.”

After Disney World employees protested the corporation’s initial reluctance to condemn the Florida bill that opponents call “Don’t Say Gay,” Newsom suggested Disney cancel the relocation of some 2,000 West Coast positions to a new Florida campus, saying on Twitter that “the door is open to bring those jobs back to California — the state that actually represents the values of your workers.”

Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who teaches political science now at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley, said that without strong Republican opposition, Newsom has been using the governors of Texas and Florida as straw men.

“It’s an effective way of strengthening himself at home and elevating his name in Democratic presidential conversations,” Schnur said.

Conservatives in and outside California have criticized the governor for stoking division.

A spokesperson for Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who is a Republican presidential contender, noted in an email that Disneyland was closed three times longer than Disney World during the pandemic, and that hundreds of thousands of Americans moved to Florida between April 2020 and July 2021 while hundreds of thousands left California. Newsom, she wrote, “is doing a better job as a U-Haul salesman.”

“Politicians in California do not have veto power over legislation passed in Florida,” the spokesperson, Christina Pushaw, added. “Gov. Newsom should focus on solving the problems in his own state.”

The office of Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas — who, in 2018, ran on the slogan “Don’t California My Texas” — did not respond to emails and calls requesting comment.

Newsom noted that California has been grappling for decades with the cultural and demographic changes that are only now hitting other parts of the country, including early battles over such issues as gay rights and immigration. “I’m very concerned broadly about what’s happening and whether or not it’s fully understood by the majority, not just of the American people but people within my own party,” he said.

“We are not going to sit back and neutrally watch the progress of the 20th century get erased,” he added, decrying the “zest for demonization” and an “anti-democratic” tilt in recent policies to restrict voting and LGBTQ protections.

“If you say nothing, you’re complicit,” Newsom said. “You have to take these guys on and push back.”

California’s stance has broad implications. Although U.S. census figures showed stalled growth in the state in 2020, its population of nearly 40 million is the nation’s largest, encompassing 1 in 9 U.S. residents.

“In a world in which the federal government has abdicated some of its core responsibility, states like California have to figure out what their responsibilities are,” said Michaels, the UCLA professor. “The hard question is: Where does it end?”

For example, he noted, the fallout could mean that federal rights that generations have taken for granted could become available only to those who can afford to uproot their lives and move to the states that guarantee them.

“It’s easy for Gov. Newsom to tell struggling Alabamians, ‘I feel your pain,’ but then what? ‘Come rent a studio apartment in San Francisco for $4,000 a month?’ ”

Violet Augustine, 37, an artist, art teacher and single parent in Dallas, worries about the limits of interstate refuge. For months, she said, she considered moving away from Texas with her transgender daughter, a kindergartner, to a state where she doesn’t constantly fear for their safety. When Abbott and Texas’ attorney general directed the state to investigate parents with transgender children for possible child abuse, her plan solidified.

An appeal on GoFundMe has raised some $23,000, and she recently made a visit to Los Angeles, staying at a hotel in the heart of the city’s Koreatown and meeting with leaders of a community group that describes itself as “radically inclusive” of LGBTQ families.

“The city itself just felt like a safe haven,” Augustine said. But, she added, her $60,000 salary, which allows her to rent a house in Texas, would scarcely cover a California apartment: “We’re going to have to downsize.”

Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones: study

Yahoo! News

Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones: study

Ben Adler, Senior Editor – April 4, 2022

Republican politicians routinely claim that cities run by Democrats have been experiencing crime waves caused by failed governance, but a new study shows murder rates are actually higher in states and cities controlled by Republicans.

“We’re seeing murders in our cities, all Democrat-run,” former President Donald Trump asserted at a March 26 rally in Georgia. “People are afraid to go out.”

In February, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., blamed Democrats for a 2018 law that reduced some federal prison sentences — even though it was signed by Trump after passing a GOP-controlled Congress. “It’s your party who voted in lockstep for the First Step Act that let thousands of violent felons on the street who have now committed innumerable violent crimes,” Cotton said during a speech in the Senate.

Last December, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, told Fox News viewers, “America’s most beautiful cities are indeed being ruined by liberal policies: There’s a direct line between death and decay and liberal policies.”

Former President Donald Trump at a rally at a rally on March 26 in Commerce, Georgia, in front of a sign reading
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at a rally on March 26 in Commerce, Ga. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

But a comparison of violent crime rates in jurisdictions controlled by Democrats and Republicans tells a very different story. In fact, a new study from the center-left think tank Third Way shows that states won by Trump in the 2020 election have higher murder rates than those carried by Joe Biden. The highest murder rates, the study found, are often in conservative, rural states.

The study found that murder rates in the 25 states Trump carried in 2020 are 40% higher overall than in the states Biden won. (The report used 2020 data because 2021 data is not yet fully available.) The five states with the highest per capita murder rate — Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Alabama and Missouri — all lean Republican and voted for Trump.

There are some examples of states Biden won in 2020 that also have high per capita murder rates, including New Mexico and Georgia, which have the seventh- and eighth-highest murder rates, respectively. And there are Trump-supporting states with low murder rates, such as Idaho and Utah. Broadly speaking, the South, and to a lesser extent the Midwest, has more murders per capita than the Northeast, interior West and West Coast, the study found.

Those findings are consistent with a pattern that has existed for decades, in which the South has had higher rates of violent crime than the nation as a whole.

Demonstrators march in Atlanta in 2021 to protest the shooting death of Daunte Wright.
Demonstrators march in Atlanta on April 14, 2021, to protest the shooting death of Daunte Wright three days earlier. (Megan Varner/Getty Images)

“We as criminologists have known this for quite some time,” Jennifer Ortiz, a professor of criminology at Indiana University Southeast, told Yahoo News. “States like Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama have historically had high crime rates.”

Criminologists say research shows higher rates of violent crime are found in areas that have low average education levels, high rates of poverty and relatively modest access to government assistance. Those conditions characterize some portions of the American South.

“They are among the poorest states in our union,” Ortiz said of the Deep South. “They have among the highest rates of child poverty. They are among the least-educated states. They are among the states with the highest levels of substance abuse. All of those factors contribute to people engaging in criminal behavior.”

“I thought that was a very good study,” Richard Rosenfeld, a professor of criminology at the University of Missouri-St. Louis and former president of the American Society of Criminology, told Yahoo News about the Third Way report. “In Republican states, states with Republican governors, crime rates tend to be higher. I’m not certain that’s related to the fact that the governor is a Republican, but it’s a fact nonetheless.”

Police and emergency personnel work on a crime scene in November 21 in Waukesha, Wisconsin.
Police and emergency personnel work on a crime scene in Waukesha, Wis., in November 2021. (Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

(While the Third Way study divided states by presidential vote in 2020, using gubernatorial party affiliation leads to similar results because most states have recently chosen the same party for governor and for president. Based on presidential vote, eight of the 10 states with the highest murder rates lean Republican, versus seven of the top 10 if one uses the governor’s party.)

Although murder rates tend to be highest in the South, the biggest increases in 2020 were found in the Great Plains and Midwest, according to Third Way. The largest jumps were in Wyoming (91.7% higher than in 2019), South Dakota (69%), Wisconsin (63.2%), Nebraska (59.1%) and Minnesota (58.1%). Wyoming, South Dakota and Nebraska all voted for Trump and have Republican governors. Wisconsin and Minnesota voted for Biden and are led by Democrats.

Few large cities are governed by Republicans — only 26 of the 100 largest U.S. cities have Republican mayors — making apples-to-apples comparisons difficult. But cities that do have Republican mayors do not have lower murder rates than similarly sized Democratic-led cities, the study found.

Some experts warn against the impulse to use crime data to score quick political points.

“​​Being a Republican or Democratic state or city is correlated with many other issues,” David Weisburd, a professor of criminology and executive director of the Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy at George Mason University, wrote in an email to Yahoo News. “That means that the murder rate may be due to the state being Republican, or it may be due to the fact that Republican states have many other risk factors related to crime or murder rates. Even with a very comprehensive modeling of all of these factors, it is very difficult to get a valid causal result for explaining crime rates.”

Police tape blocks a street where a person was shot in a drug-related incident in Philadelphia in 2021.
Police tape blocks a street where a person was shot in a drug-related incident in Philadelphia in 2021. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

That argument cuts both ways, however. Weisburd also thinks the claims of Trump and other Republicans who say Democrats have caused a crime wave in the cities and states they govern are unfounded. “I don’t think this argument can be supported no matter which way you go,” Weisburd said.

Murder rates in the U.S. rose dramatically in 2020 from record lows, and the increases are similar across states — regardless of partisan preference. For homicides in 2020, Third Way found a 32.2% uptick in Trump-backing states versus a 30.8% rise in those that voted for Biden. Some states with large cities, such as New York and Pennsylvania, saw larger-than-average increases: New York went up 47% and Pennsylvania is up 39%. But the largest increases were in rural, Republican-led states, including Montana (+84%) and South Dakota (+81%).

The higher national murder rate is naturally causing public concern, although violent crime does remain far below its early 1990s high point. “Using the FBI data, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2019,” from 757 incidents per 100,000 people to 379 per 100,000, the Pew Research Center noted last November. Between 2019 and 2020, the murder rate jumped from 6 homicides per 100,000 people to 7.8 homicides per 100,000, but that was still 22% below the rate in 1991 of 10 homicides per 100,000.

Colwell: Things would surely be different in Ukraine if Trump were president

South Bend Tribune

Colwell: Things would surely be different in Ukraine if Trump were president

Jack Colwell – April 3, 2022

Donald Trump is right. If he were still president, the situation would be far different in Ukraine.

If Mike Pence had ignored his Hoosier values of truth, justice and the Constitution and cooperated in overturning the election results, Trump could now be president.

There would be no danger of armed conflict between Russia and NATO over Ukraine.

There would be no NATO. Trump contended throughout his first term that NATO was outdated. He belittled and insulted leaders of European nations in the alliance. He was reluctant to support the collective-defense agreement known as Article 5. By now in a second term, he would have pulled out of the alliance and scuttled it.

There would be no suggestion from a President Trump that Vladimir Putin is a butcher and must go after Russia invaded Ukraine. Trump praised the “genius” of Putin as Russia amassed troops for the invasion. And he wouldn’t let a little thing like Russia seeking to dominate its neighbor ruin his bromance with Putin. Hey, he pulled out of Syria and let Russia dominate there.

There would be no long, heroic stand by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He would have been dead a month ago. Trump holds a grudge. Zelenskyy didn’t announce an investigation of Joe Biden before the election, even when Trump held up needed defensive weapons for Ukraine to force it. Fervent Trump supporters like Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Madison Cawthorn haven’t forgotten. They call Zelenskyy a “thug” and “corrupt.” Trump, if still president, wouldn’t forget and wouldn’t coordinate massive arms shipments and sanctions to save Zelenskyy and thwart friend Putin.

There would be no Ukraine. Without the United States and a unified NATO providing the help to stall the invasion, Russia would have smashed into Kyiv and disposed of Zelenskyy, still with a terrible toll in Ukraine civilian deaths but with less delay against an outgunned Ukrainian military left without needed weapons.

Trump, though no longer president, still speaks out, claiming that he really won re-election and demonstrating how he would be responding to Putin if still in the White House.

Trump calls for Putin to do something now, something very important.

It wasn’t a call for Putin to halt the massacres in Ukraine. It was a call for Putin to release possible dirt on President Biden’s black-sheep son Hunter.

Trump resurrected and embellished a controversial, last-minute 2020 campaign contention that Hunter Biden might have (or might not have) received money through funding of a firm by the wife of Moscow’s mayor.

“She gave him $3.5 million,” Trump stated as fact. Why? “I would think Putin would know the answer to that. I think he should release it,” Trump said. “I think we should know that answer.”

Putin would of course be believed if he announced, “Yes, the Bidens accepted millions in bribes along with that thug Zelenskyy to set up a Nazi government and germ warfare labs in Ukraine.”

Well, U.S. intelligence agencies didn’t believe Putin’s claims that troops on Ukraine’s border weren’t going to invade. They wouldn’t believe he had turned truthful now after a life of lies.

But Trump would believe. He famously declared at a meeting with the Russian leader that he believed the word of Putin over findings of his own intelligence agencies.

If Putin did provide dirt helpful for Trump’s election in 2024, it would pretty much cinch that Trump, if president again, would approve Putin’s conquest of Ukraine and signal no concern over Putin’s desire to return other countries, Poland, Hungary and the Baltics, to their status in the old Soviet Union.

While investigations continue into what Hunter Biden and Donald Trump Jr. might have done wrong, the possible transgressions of either child of a president, proven or not, shouldn’t hinder the efforts to save all those children in Ukraine.

Jack Colwell is a columnist for The Tribune. Write to him in care of The Tribune or by email at jcolwell@comcast.net.

Democrats Worry That What Happens in Nevada Won’t Stay in Nevada

The New York Times

Democrats Worry That What Happens in Nevada Won’t Stay in Nevada

Jennifer Medina and Reid J. Epstein – April 1, 2022

Recent apartment and housing developments in  Las Vegas, where housing prices and rents have skyrocketed March, 24, 2022. (Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)
Recent apartment and housing developments in Las Vegas, where housing prices and rents have skyrocketed March, 24, 2022. (Bridget Bennett/The New York Times)

LAS VEGAS — Scars from the coronavirus pandemic are still visible here. Housing prices skyrocketed, with rents rising faster than almost anywhere else in the country. Roughly 10,000 casino workers remain out of work. Gas prices, now more than $5 a gallon, are higher than in every other state except California.

Amid a flagging economy, the state Democrats held up as a national model for more than a decade — registering and turning out first-time voters — has become the epitome of the party’s difficulties going into the 2022 midterm elections.

Democrats have long relied on working-class and Latino voters to win Nevada, but the loyalty of both groups is now in question. Young voters who fueled Sen. Bernie Sanders’ biggest victory in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary remain skeptical about President Joe Biden. And Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., the country’s first Latina senator, is one of the party’s most endangered incumbents.

She must overcome the president’s sagging approval ratings, dissatisfaction with the economy and her own relative anonymity. And she lacks the popularity and deep ties with Latino voters that Sen. Harry Reid, who died in December, harnessed to help build the state’s powerful Democratic machine. The state has long been a symbol of the Democratic Party’s future by relying on a racially diverse coalition to win elections, but those past gains are now at risk.

“There’s a lot of frustration on the ground that no one is listening,” said Leo Murrieta, director of Make the Road Nevada, a liberal advocacy group. “They are not wrong. It’s hard to talk about the possibility of tomorrow when your todays are still torn apart.”

Nevada, which Biden carried in 2020, has been a linchpin for Democrats in presidential elections since 2008. But an election cycle pattern that has alarmed Democrats has emerged. The party dominates in presidential elections but struggles during the midterms when a Democrat is in the White House. Democratic turnout takes a steep drop, largely because of the state’s highly transient population, and Republicans gain ground.

In 2014, the last midterm election with a Democrat in the White House, the state’s turnout dropped 46% compared to the previous presidential election, ushering in Republican control of the state Legislature. This year, Republican victories could unseat the Democratic governor, Steve Sisolak, and the state’s three Democratic members of Congress while also replacing Cortez Masto with a 2020 election denier in the Senate.

Beyond turnout, a deeper problem for Democrats is that the state has been turning, ever so slightly, less blue. The state’s share of registered Democrats has fallen — from 39.4% in 2016 to 33.6% in February, according to figures from the Nevada secretary of state. At the same time, more than 28% of registered voters are now unaffiliated with any party, an increase from 20% in 2016. Officials said the spike in unaffiliated voters stems from an automatic voter registration system Nevada voters adopted in 2018.

The state’s economy has shown some signs of improvement. Joblessness in Reno is down to some of the lowest numbers in a century. Democrats are counting on the region, which has attracted new residents, many from California, and become something of a tech hub. But with more than 70% of the state’s population living in Clark County, which is home to Las Vegas, the election is likely to be decided on the outcome there. In interviews with Las Vegas voters, the economy overshadowed all other issues. There was a sense of optimism among some, but they worried that they would not have enough money for the basics: rent, food, gas.

“What I care about is opportunity and the economy,” said Angel Clavijo, 23, who voted for the first time in 2020. Although he cast his ballot for Biden, Clavijo said he was not registered with either party.

Although he was able to keep his job as a housekeeper at The Venetian Resort through the pandemic, Clavijo watched anxiously as his parents’ bills stacked up. “I really can’t say I’m paying a lot of attention to politics right now,” he said. “I’m not just going to vote by party.”

Margarita Mejia, 68, a retired hotel worker, said she has voted for most of her life for Democrats but sat out the 2020 election as she helped her family and friends deal with the pandemic.

“It was depressing, being alone, struggling for everything,” said Mejia, who was selling clothing, stuffed animals and art from her front yard last week. “I don’t know what the government does for us, even when they say they want to help.”

Clavijo and Mejia could not name Nevada’s incumbent senator up for reelection — Cortez Masto, whose seat is critical if the Democrats want to maintain control of the Senate.

Despite five years in the Senate and eight years as Nevada’s attorney general, Cortez Masto remains unknown by a broad swath of the Nevada electorate as a result of her longtime aversion to publicity, cautious political demeanor and Nevada’s transient voters.

Almost half the voters on Nevada’s rolls have registered since Cortez Masto was last on the ballot in 2016, according to an analysis by TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm. Her own internal polling found that nearly one-quarter of Latinos did not have an opinion on the race between her and Adam Laxalt, a former Nevada attorney general who is likely to be her Republican opponent in the general election.

The Cortez Masto campaign began reintroducing her to Latino audiences earlier this month with a Spanish-language television advertisement that leaned heavily on telling her life story as a political pioneer and her family’s history in the military.

It gave a generous interpretation of her biography: Her father, Manny Cortez, was one of the most powerful figures in Las Vegas during stints on the Clark County Commission and later as the head of the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. In that role, he approved the ubiquitous Las Vegas marketing phrase, “What happens here, stays here.”

“He didn’t start at the top,” Reid said from the Senate floor after Cortez died in 2006, “but he ended up there.”

Cortez, who maintained a close friendship with Reid, operated as a behind-the-scenes player. While that served him as a political operator, it may not help his daughter in this year’s high-profile race that will help determine control of the Senate.

“He was never a guy who went out and sought attention from the media,” said Jon Ralston, a longtime Nevada journalist. “She is kind of an exaggerated version of him in many ways.”

That aversion to seeking the spotlight has left Cortez Masto as essentially a generic Democrat in a midterm year when being yoked to Biden is a political hazard. A January poll from The Nevada Independent showed Biden’s approval rating in the state at just 41%.

Cortez Masto declined to be interviewed.

“No state was hit harder than Nevada, and we’re recovering quickly because Catherine fought to get the relief our hospitality industry needed, supporting the tens of thousands of workers who rely on our tourism economy,” a spokesperson, Josh Marcus-Blank, said in a statement.

Jeremy Hughes, a Republican who was a campaign adviser to Dean Heller, the former Republican senator, said Cortez Masto would have difficultly separating herself from Biden and the national party’s diminished brand.

“Every data point I’ve seen points to Hispanic voters being more open to supporting a Republican this cycle than any in recent memory,” Hughes said. “If the economy is the No. 1 issue on voters’ minds across the country, in Nevada and especially among Hispanic voters, it’s the No. 1, 2 and 3 issue.”

But Democrats say that her likely Republican opponent, Laxalt, is unlikely to win over moderate voters. Laxalt, whose father and grandfather both served in the Senate, ran the Trump campaign’s effort to overturn Nevada’s 2020 election results.

Democrats are also counting on more economic improvement in Las Vegas, where the economy took a hit with the abrupt shutdown of the Strip but has started to be revived with crowded casinos.

On a recent sunny afternoon in east Las Vegas, Paul Madrid and Daniel Trujillo took a break in front of the barbershop they have run for the last 20 years. Business has been brisk lately, and they described themselves as relieved that the worst was behind them. Still, they have winced while watching the price of gas tick up at the station across the street.

Madrid, 52, called himself a “lifelong working-class Democrat” and said he had tried to pay less attention to politics since former President Donald Trump left office. As frustrated as he has been, he is likely to vote for Democrats in November. But he said he felt less loyal than he once did.

“Something’s got to change,” he said. “We’ve got to put the country before party. I’ve got to stay positive. My business is back, customers are back, and I just want this all to be over with.”

Call Logs Underscore Trump’s Efforts to Sway Lawmakers on Jan. 6

The New York Times

Call Logs Underscore Trump’s Efforts to Sway Lawmakers on Jan. 6

Luke Broadwater and Maggie Haberman – March 30, 2022

 Peter Navarro, former trade advisor to the White House, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Oct. 30, 2020. (Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times).
Peter Navarro, former trade advisor to the White House, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, on Oct. 30, 2020. (Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times).

WASHINGTON — As part of his frenzied attempt to cling to power, President Donald Trump reached out repeatedly to members of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, both before and during the siege of the Capitol, according to White House call logs and evidence gathered by the House committee investigating the attack.

The logs, reported earlier by The Washington Post and CBS and authenticated by The New York Times, indicated that Trump had called Republican members of Congress, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, as he sought to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject electoral votes from several states.

But the logs also have a large gap with no record of calls by Trump from critical hours when investigators know that he was making them. The call logs were among documents turned over by the National Archives to the House committee examining the attack last year on the Capitol.

The New York Times reported last month that the committee had discovered gaps in official White House telephone logs from the day of the riot. The Washington Post and CBS reported Tuesday that a gap in the phone logs amounted to 7 hours and 37 minutes, including the period when the building was being assaulted.

Investigators have not uncovered evidence that any of the call logs were tampered with or deleted. It is well known that Trump routinely used his personal cellphone, and those of his aides, to talk with other aides, congressional allies and outside confidants, bypassing the normal channels of presidential communication and possibly explaining why the calls were not logged.

The logs appear to have captured calls that were routed through the White House switchboard. Three former officials who worked under Trump said that he mostly used the switchboard operator for outgoing calls when he was in the residence. He would occasionally use it from the Oval Office, the former officials said, but more often he would make calls through the assistants sitting outside the office, as well as from his cellphone or an aide’s cellphone. The assistants were supposed to keep records of the calls, but officials said the record keeping was not thorough.

People trying to reach Trump sometimes called the cellphone of Dan Scavino, former deputy chief of staff and omnipresent aide, one of the former officials said. (The House committee investigating the attack recommended Monday evening that Scavino be charged with criminal contempt of Congress for refusing to cooperate with a subpoena from the panel.)

But the call logs nevertheless show how personally involved Trump was in his last-ditch attempt to stay in office.

One of the calls made by Trump on Jan. 6, 2021 — at 9:16 a.m. — was to McConnell, the Senate’s top Republican, who refused to go along with Trump’s pressure campaign. Trump checked with the White House switchboard operator at 10:40 a.m. to make sure a message had been left for McConnell.

McConnell declined to return the president’s calls, he told reporters Tuesday.

“The last time I spoke to the president was the day after the Electoral College declared President Biden the winner,” McConnell said. “I publicly congratulated President Biden on his victory and received a phone call after that from President Trump and that’s the last time we’ve spoke.”

The logs also show Trump reached out on the morning of Jan. 6 to Jordan, who had been among members of Congress organizing objections to Joe Biden’s election on the House floor.

The logs show Trump and Jordan spoke from 9:24 a.m. to 9:34 a.m. Jordan has acknowledged speaking with Trump on Jan. 6, although he has said he cannot remember how many times they spoke that day or when the calls occurred.

Trump called Hawley at 9:39 a.m., and Hawley returned his phone call. A spokesperson for Hawley said Tuesday that the two men did not connect and did not speak until March. Hawley had been the first senator to announce he would object to Biden’s victory, and continued his objections even after rioters stormed the building and other senators backed off the plan.

The logs also show that Trump spoke from 11:04 a.m. to 11:06 a.m. with former Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., who had recently lost his reelection campaign to Sen. Jon Ossoff.

A spokesperson for Sen. Bill Hagerty, R- Tenn., confirmed he had called Trump on Jan. 6 but said they did not connect. Hagerty declined to comment.

Despite the lack of call records from the White House, the committee has learned that Trump spoke on the phone with other Republican lawmakers on the morning of Jan. 6.

For instance, Trump mistakenly called the phone of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, thinking it was the number of Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. Lee then passed the phone to Tuberville, who said he had spoken to Trump for less than 10 minutes as rioters were breaking into the building.

The president also fielded a call from Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the top House Republican, who told Trump that people were breaking into his office on Capitol Hill.

During that call, Trump was said to have sided with the rioters, telling the top House Republicans that members of the mob who had stormed the Capitol were “more upset about the election than you are.”

Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, was also calling lawmakers that day and continued to do so even after rioters laid siege to the building. In an evening phone call, he made clear that the effort to fight the result of the election was still alive even after the riot.

“Sen. Tuberville, or I should say Coach Tuberville, this is Rudy Giuliani, the president’s lawyer,” Giuliani said in a voicemail message intended for Tuberville, but mistakenly left on Lee’s phone. “I’m calling you because I want to discuss with you how they’re trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down.”

The news of the call logs came the same day that the White House said Biden would not extend executive privilege to cover any testimony to the committee by Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, Trump’s daughter and son-in-law, who worked as his advisers.

“The president has spoken to the fact that Jan. 6 was one of the darkest days in our country’s history, and that we must have a full accounting of what happened to ensure that it never occurs again,” said White House spokesperson Kate Bedingfield. “And he’s been quite clear that they posed a unique threat to our democracy and that the constitutional protections of executive privilege should not be used to shield, from Congress or the public, information about an attack on the Constitution itself.”

Kushner is scheduled to testify before the committee this week, while Ivanka Trump has been negotiating the terms of her potential cooperation.